The Fifth
District Court of Appeal held Friday that court documents relating to a
settlement between a law firm and two of its former clients, former Air Force
Brigadier General Charles E. “Chuck” Yeager and his wife, were improperly
sealed by the trial court.

The
court noted public interest in Yeager. Last Saturday marked 70 years from the
date when he became the first person to officially break the sound barrier.

The
law firm, Wild, Carter & Tipton of Fresno “has failed to show a substantial
probability that an overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record does
not remain sealed,” Justice Rosendo Peña Jr. declared.

Peña
announced that the court ordered the trial court records, and those filed in
the Court of Appeal, unsealed, on its own motion, on Sept. 8.

Reasons
put forth by the Yeagers, acting in pro per, as to why the settlement should
not be enforced—such as pressure put on them by their lawyer and the inability
to hear on the part of Charles Yeager, 94—were rejected, and the judgment by
Fresno Superior Court Judge Kristi Culver Kapetan, pursuant to the settlement,
was affirmed.

On
May 6, 2014, the parties reached a settlement, the terms of which were recited,
on the record. Kapetan on Aug. 25 granted the law firm’s motion to enforce the
judgment and said she would fashion a “very bare bones” written judgment based
the transcript of the May 6 hearing.

She
ordered sealed the judgment, her order granting the law firm’s motion, the
transcript of the May 6 hearing, handwritten notes made on May 6 as to the
terms, and other documents.

Explains
Unsealing

That
was impermissible, Peña said, explaining:

“The
First Amendment guarantees the press and the public the right of access to
criminal and civil trials….

“Under
rule 2.550 of the California Rules of Court, the court may order a record
sealed only upon making express findings that ‘(1) There exists an overriding
interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record; [¶] (2) The
overriding interest supports sealing the record; [¶] (3) A substantial
probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the
record is not sealed; [¶] (4) The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and
[¶] (5) No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.’ ”

The
existence of a confidentiality agreement is not enough to warrant sealing, he
said, absent a showing that harm would ensue from disclosure.

“Here,
the parties agreed to keep the terms of the settlement agreement confidential,
and although the terms of the agreement appear to be innocuous, this is a
newsworthy case, Peña wrote, noting:

“General
Yeager is to some extent a public figure, and this case received some media
attention.”

Aside
from breaking the sound barrier, Yeager commanded fighter squadrons during the
Vietnamese War, and trained early astronauts.

Injury Not
Apparent

The
jurist added that “it is unclear how serious injury would result to either
party from lifting the seal,” noting:

“The
sealed records disclose no trade secrets, financial information, or product
information. The parties have not shown disclosure would result in a breach of
any privilege, such as the attorney-client privilege, nor do the sealed records
contain information likely to be embarrassing.”

The
jurist continued:

“In
our view, the settlement appears to be a routine agreement. One that, by its
express terms, permits the parties to disclose to outside sources that a
settlement was reached, even though the terms of the settlement are
confidential. As such, it appears the only harm that would result from lifting
the seal would be the obvious: it would undermine the parties’ right to
contract. Case authority suggests, however, this alone is insufficient to show
a substantial injury would result from public disclosure.”

The
law firm—the oldest in Fresno, founded in 1893—contended that reputational harm
would result from disclosure. However, Peña pointed out, each side’s
contentions about the other had already been made public by the pleadings.

Wild,
Carter & Tipton was suing for unpaid legal bills amounting to more than
$270,000 and the Yeagers sued the lawyers for malpractice.

Prior
to the settlement, the law firm released a statement which said, in part:

“While
Wild, Carter and Tipton recognize General Yeager as of one of our Country’s
most prominent military heroes, who with his deceased wife Glennis, established
a military and aviation legacy, his fame and legacy are no excuse for the
manner in which his current wife, Victoria D’Angelo (Yeager), a one-time
actress, has treated the legal system and the professionals she has employed in
the General’s name. Since the General married Ms. D’Angelo [in 2003], she has
embroiled the General in a multitude of lawsuits. The public record is that
before his marriage to Ms. D’Angelo, General Yeager had never been a party to a
civil action. Since then, General Yeager now finds himself embroiled in some 17
past and present lawsuits, many against the very attorneys Ms. D’Angelo-Yeager
hired on the General’s behalf.”